---

Children

My Lords, are we not doing well on the Cross Benches? The job of giving one’s own children the love and care that they need is already tough. Sometimes it has its compensations. However, looking after other people’s children can be much more difficult, especially when they have been emotionally or cognitively damaged by their earlier life. The relatively low chances of reversing that damage sometimes make it even more depressing. As I read the report, it screamed at me that we as a nation are asking too much of those whom we employ to do the job of looking after other people’s children. The report clearly shows that there are not enough people who, under the present terms, want to care for damaged children and children at risk; there is not enough time and money being put into training them; society does not adequately value their work; and, in some cases the organisation and leadership are not adequate. Those are generalisations; many admirable and dedicated people work in the service. Some services in some areas are working well, but some are not. It is evident from media coverage that we as a society expect a flawless service in the protection of children. Up to a point, it is right that we should do so. But it is no good expecting that throwing more work and responsibility at already over-stretched services will provide the answer to that problem. In passing, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady, Morris of Bolton, who seems to be alone on her Benches, that if she would care to offer me the leadership of the Conservative Party, I would undertake a policy of one year without any new legislation or regulations. I should like briefly to suggest one or two ways forward. In doing so, I am assuming that in reality the money and human resources to build the perfect state service will never realistically be available in the face of the current level of demand and the increase in demand that we must anticipate. I am talking mainly about the preventive action mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, because every child who needs to be taken into care is a failure of our society. First, we should think again about what parents contribute and what they could contribute to the safety of their children. We should do more to engage parents in securing the safety of other people’s children. An obvious example of this is the lollypop ladies and gentlemen who help children across the road after school, but that is only one of many examples one can think of. Today we do very little to prepare parents for, and to support them in, their difficult task of bringing up their children and securing their safety. Let us do more there. We could do much more to reduce the flow of sad children into the care of the state if we were more positive in supporting committed parents. Families and neighbours are important too. We could do much more to support the solidarity of families and communities. Grandparents could live near to their families instead of on the other side of town; local authority housing policy could quite simply be changed. There are many other ways. Then there are communities. How can we engage communities more in looking after other people’s children as they used to? In the days of the slums, people knew who other people’s children were, they saw if they were getting into trouble and they would care for them. People knew people. People now live in tower blocks where nobody knows anybody. Turning to the caring services, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, referred to morale. The success of armies in the field and of businesses depends greatly on morale. What can we do to raise the morale of the army of good people that is working to safeguard children? Today, morale is very low in many of those services. What about leadership? Are we attracting really able people into key roles and are we motivating them appropriately? My final point relates to what one of my sons calls ““the army of safety Hitlers””. Somewhere in the corridors of Whitehall, there seems to be a group of people who believe that if there are enough rules, regulations and inspections, perfect safety is possible. Sadly, that is not true in the world we live in. Of course, some regulations are necessary, but endless detailed directions, checklists, rules, inspections and the fear of litigation can be counterproductive because they can drive good people out of the caring professions. I know that they are doing so in the youth service. I do not know about the other professions, but I suspect that some people are leaving and less people are tempted by the job. Leadership is about assessing risk and then balancing risk against advantage. I should like to see an account drawn up of which is better for the safety and wellbeing of children: children’s services dominated by prescription and fear of litigation, or children’s services attracting and motivating the most able and dedicated workforce possible. I think I know the answer.